The Manama Summit’s Aspirations and Contradictions: No Arab Will to Confront Israel and No Rush for Normalization Without Concessions

The idea of holding an "International Peace Conference" in the Middle East, as proposed by the King of Bahrain at the 33rd Arab Summit in Manama, will not find consensus. Nor will the Arab call be heeded for deploying UN peacekeeping forces in Palestinian territories to protect Palestinian civilians until the "two-state solution" is implemented. Indeed, Israel will not agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state, not only because of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's obstinacy but also because the Israeli public has revealed its opposition to the idea, despite global consensus around it. The Palestinian factions will not reconcile, and the "Palestinian resistance axis" will not accept the PLO taking overpower, despite the best efforts of China. The Gaza war will not cease as long as the United States fails to exert serious pressure on Israel, whose leaders hold in disdain the American president and global public opinion. And the war will not end as long as Qatar, Turkey, and Egypt also fail to persuade Hamas leaders to leave Gaza, with these countries shirking the responsibility of hosting Hamas and its leaders, passing the burden onto Jordan and Lebanon. A war of attrition in Gaza could prolong, making both Palestine and Israel losers, with Netanyahu and Hamas earning the medal of honour for their "strategic folly".

One surprising and unprecedented event worth starting with was President Mahmoud Abbas's attack on Hamas in his speech at the Arab Summit in Manama, accusing the group of "providing excuses" for Israel to attack the Gaza Strip. He said that "the military operation carried out by Hamas unilaterally on that day, October 7, provided Israel with more pretexts and justifications to attack Gaza, kill, destroy, and displace its people." He also urged the Arab leaders at the summit to demand that the United States "stop its double standards policy" and "pressure the occupying state to release our withheld funds."

Hamas expressed disappointment over Abbas's remarks "regarding the heroic Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and the internal reconciliation process," saying in a statement that the 7 October attack represented "the most significant episode in our Palestinian struggle... restoring our issue to the top of the priorities list and achieving strategic gains that tarnish the face of this entity, bringing us closer to freedom and self-determination."

But the strategic gains Hamas is talking about exist only in their leadership's imagination because Gaza's reality today is complete devastation, the permanent Israeli occupation of a significant part of Gaza's territory, and the forced displacement that has become an undeniable reality that not even Hamas can pretend will be temporary. The so-called strategic gains of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood are therefore strategic delusions of Hamas leaders who now only want to be rescued from their predicament.

Boasting that the operation tarnished Israel's image deserves cynical applause, as this "achievement" cost more than a hundred thousand innocent Palestinian lives, displaced children, and caused unprecedented famine. True, Israel's ugly face was clearly revealed to the world, which stood aghast at how Israelis thought of themselves as victims, when Palestinians were all along the real victims of Israeli occupation and aggression. However, people's memories are short and their emotions short lived—leaving in the end only sorrow and misery for innocent Palestinians, victims of the brutality and arrogance of leadership in both Israel and Hamas, and the factions that coordinated with Hamas on October 7. What the leaderships in Israel and Hamas have accomplished is the demolition of the "two-state solution" and the indefinite postponement of the establishment of a Palestinian state.

President Mahmoud Abbas was bold in his speech at the Bahrain Summit, describing the situation as it truly is, taking a significant risk. He deserves serious and tangible support from Arab countries, not just through repeated affirmations that the Palestinian Authority is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people—although this affirmation is important.

Indeed, what is urgently needed is to heed Mahmoud Abbas's call when he said that the Palestinian government had not received the financial support it expected from international and regional partners, and that "it has become urgent to activate an Arab safety net, to strengthen the resilience of our people, and to enable the government to perform its duties." It is clear that Abbas, his government, and his entourage must however prove that corruption within their ranks has been eradicated and that they are diligently working to form a serious technocratic government commensurate with the current situation. Otherwise, his call will not garner sympathy or bring the needed funds.

Jordanian King Abdullah emphasized the need to support the Palestinian Authority and to mobilize international efforts to prevent the separation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. He understands that the threat to Jordan comes not only from Israel but also from Palestinian factions that provide pretexts for Israel to achieve its dream of making Jordan an alternative homeland for Palestinians while inciting Palestinians in Jordan against the King and the Hashemite monarchy.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman sent clear messages to both Israel and Palestine and the international community. He condemned Israel's "brutal aggression" against "our Palestinian brothers," affirming that Saudi Arabia is serious about placing the two-state solution at the forefront of its conditions for normalizing relations with Israel if it wants to normalize ties with the region. He spoke of international pressure and working jointly with the international community to stop the "aggression of the occupying forces." He reiterated the Arab Peace Initiative proposed at the 2002 Beirut Summit, detailing Saudi Arabia's position supporting the Palestinian people's right to "establish their independent state on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital," with international efforts to ensure this goal is achieved. He welcomed the recent United Nations General Assembly resolution recognizing that the State of Palestine is eligible for full membership in the UN and called on countries to "bilaterally recognize" this eligibility.

These are primarily Saudi messages to Israel, saying these are the conditions for normalization, including the equation of land for peace and the establishment of a Palestinian state. It's a clear message that there is no bargaining on Riyadh's conditions and no rush towards normalization while the aggression continues.

In other words, Saudi Arabia has put its future relationship with Israel on hold, pending serious Israeli steps towards Palestine. This is notable because Riyadh is showing firmness towards Israel while being simultaneously comfortable with its relationship with the United States with whom it is seeking a security agreement, independent from the U.S.-Saudi-Israeli trilateral relationship. Riyadh is not in a rush.

Cairo by contrast has expressed more urgency through the speech of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, highlighting Egyptian concerns about the forced displacement of Palestinians and the outbreak of chaos amidst the deterioration of the Egyptian-Israeli relationship. There is no threat to the collapse of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. However, according to Sisi, "This critical moment imposes a choice on all parties involved," which is "between the path of peace, stability, and hope, or the path of chaos and destruction driven by the ongoing military escalation in Gaza." This is a serious statement from the Egyptian president, warning against chaos and signalling fear of chaos.

Absent from the Arab summit in Manama was Hamas and its alleged strategic gains in the Al-Aqsa Flood operation. The Manama summit rose above rhetoric of one-upmanship and its quiet message was clear: Israel's aggression against the Palestinian people is undoubtedly brutal and barbaric. But what Hamas did on October 7 was also an affront to the Palestinian people because what Hamas offered them was nothing but destruction, displacement, death, and famine, along with a failed attempt to influence world public opinion. To be sure, the Arab public opinion is today divided between those feeling schadenfreude for Israel and those feeling anger at Hamas, considering them partners on October 7 and its aftermath.

Bahrain's King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa emphasized in the opening speech of the summit that "the choice of peace in the region is a strategic necessity to enhance stability in the region" and affirmed that the Palestine Liberation Organization remains the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. His call for an international peace conference in the Middle East stems from the hope for a shift from war to peace with international momentum. However, this remains a hopeful invitation, not a concrete proposal with a coherent roadmap.

The United States is not prepared for an international conference because it prefers to focus on its efforts to end the Gaza war and defeat Hamas before moving forward with any major deal that the Biden administration had envisioned. Washington is not ready to sit down with Moscow at the Middle East peace table either while American and European animosity toward Russian President Vladimir Putin persists and the war in Ukraine continues. Therefore, at least for these two reasons, an international peace conference in the Middle East is unlikely to be held in the near future. However, Manama will continue, during its presidency of the Arab Summit, to push for the goal of holding the conference through diplomatic efforts.

The proposal of the Arab summit to deploy international forces in Palestinian territories until a two-state solution is achieved was nipped in the bud when the United States signalled that such a proposal could harm Israel's efforts to defeat Hamas. This is an American priority. After defeating Hamas, Washington may be ready to discuss deploying international forces. For now, its focus is on ending the Gaza war without an Israeli invasion of Rafah that would cause an unavoidable humanitarian disaster, and on defeating Hamas and keeping it away from Gaza.

The Biden administration wants to continue its partnership with Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt, as well as with Turkey, to find a way to signal to Hamas that its time is up — thus bring about an end to the war. But Hamas is yet not ready to bid farewell to Gaza as long as its leadership believes that a war of attrition with Israel in Gaza may be in its interest because the movement is engaged in urban and tunnel warfare. Such a war will be ongoing and costly for both sides, but the Palestinians will undoubtedly pay the price for the failure to end the Gaza war.

Much of note has been broadcasted from the Manama summit, ranging from Arab security and global security through navigation, to addressing Iran through the Arab summit. But the most notable aspect of the Manama summit's outcomes is the absence of Arab willingness to confront Israel and the receding Arab readiness to normalize with it without reciprocity.